Mark Greene believes our male cultural history, the steps we took to get here, make ignoring boys and men as victims a likely outcome.
Over the last few days, a few of us have been in dialogue over the following question: Is Brutality Toward Women Getting Worse? I wrote this quick post in response to the story of a child bride victimized in Afghanistan, who recently received justice from an Afghanistan court of law.
There were many comments on the post from folks who wanted to know why I was highlighting “women’s issues” yet again, presumably at the expense of men and boys. Their argument, which is valid on many levels, goes as follows: We have over the last fifty years focused huge amounts of our global resources on women’s issues. Legislation, funding, scholarly work, media discourse and more have focused on the challenges faced by women both in the US and abroad. A lot of substantive progress has been made.
But has this ongoing focus on women’s issues come at the expense of men’s rights as fathers, husbands, workers and as victims of violent crimes and rape, as perpetrated both men and women? Furthermore, are we continuing to feed a cultural dialogue that puts boys and men at a disadvantage in every stage of our societal discourse?
For example: CDC statistics show that women are just as likely to be physically abusive in relationships as they are to be abused. Is this fact shared openly by the mass media or shunted aside in favor of narratives that define men as abusers and women as victims?
♦◊♦
Sometimes the emotions can run pretty high on the question of men’s rights. It has been suggested that my posting of the story about this child bride is part or an orchestrated effort to “hype up” articles about women being abused while the boys who suffer abuse, rape and untimely death in Afghanistan receive little or no gender specific attention.
It is clear to me that we live in a world full of angry, binary discourses. As such, there are ample reasons why people do everything they can to tilt focus to their issues. In the case of women’s issues, some percentage of people may have done so in ways that are ultimately harmful to men.
Here’s an obvious example. In our culture, if a man strikes his wife and she reports it, the consequences can be immediate and catastrophic for that man. If a women strikes her husband, and he reports it, are the results as significant? Or is he viewed culturally by the cop on the beat, as somehow lacking something integral to being a man? Is he viewed as weak? And are weak men viewed as less deserving of legal recourse than a women who, by definition, is defenseless? In a nutshell, the cops (as representatives of our culture’s most blunt social priorities ) may have very clear training and orders on how to deal with a husband beating his wife. But, by virtue of our system’s lumbering bureaucratic priorities, what training has he or she had to deal with a women beating a man? Very little. And so, they take a report and walk away shaking their heads.
I can tell you that I have seen this imbalance around physical abuse play out first person. A very kind and gentle friend of mine had the side of his face opened up by his wife on the day of their son’s first birthday. He was unable to attend the party because of this and when I saw him days later he showed me the claw marks on his face. This was a serious wound.
My friend made one thing perfectly clear. He knew that if he did anything in the moment to retaliate physically, he would lose access to his son. He took physical abuse from his wife for years before the marriage finally failed. And he never raised his hand back. But the knowledge that a double standard exists was never far from his mind. When the marriage ended he was stuck holding the alimony and child support bill. I would not relate a story like this if it were not the god’s honest truth. The stakes are too high here. The implications too immense.
What we are talking about is the result of a tilted public discourse, in which women’s issues have been successfully highlighted (and justifiably so) and in which men remain victims-in-hiding of a range of issues. We have had the first half of a conversation. It’s time for the second half to begin.
But is there ill will at work here, intentionally suppressing a public discourse on male issues?
I want to address the question of whether or not women’s issues have purposely been (and continue to be) highlighted in a way specifically intended to disempower men, because I believe this question lies at the heart of the high level of reactivity from some men’s rights advocates.
♦◊♦
First let me say this. It would be naive to deny that some of us have bought into the gender wars. There will be numerous examples of incidental smoking guns on all sides. Some people will focus on these kinds of “evidence” to somehow prove an orchestrated effort to suppress men’s issues. No matter what side you’re on, there will always be examples of the intention to mislead and take advantage of the larger dialogue. Especially when there are vast amounts of public money at stake. But I believe our stunted and contentious discourse about men’s issues is mostly the result of long standing male cultural norms.
Our male cultural history, the steps we took to get here, made ignoring boys and men as victims a likely outcome. Only now are we starting to talk about men as being equally in need of society’s focus and resources. Imagining such an idea even twenty years ago would have been impossible. In part, because men refused to think of themselves as needing help. Whatever we have had to endure, the over riding cultural message was, endure it in silence.
Our current living generation of men, born from the 1920s on, spent decades responding to the world in either the angry or confident-macho modes. These were the two acceptable modes of expression by men when confronted with life’s challenges. I suppose you can also toss in blind stinking drunk. But the fact is, there was no space in which men could express fear, or weakness, or talk about the abuse in their lives. In my father’s generation there was absolutely no space to discuss men as powerless victims. If things were bad you were expected to just punch back harder. “If you are too weak or stupid to avoid being a victim then its your own fault” seemed to be the prevailing wisdom. Never mind that some of us were just little children when bad things happened. Being tough was the answer to everything. And not that much has changed.
“Shake it off, crybaby.” When I hear that today at my kid’s soccer field, I look to see if its being said to a boy or a girl. It’s pretty much always a boy.
♦◊♦
The fact is women were culturally granted permission to weep. To show weakness and display emotions. To be victims who needed protection. (Even as they were, in some cases, victimizing men.)
But this discourse of victimhood is new for men. This space we have created in which to share our stories and our pain has no long cultural or historical roots. For men, it goes back maybe one generation and it stops. This is not a discussion I would ever expect to have with my father. These are new ways of speaking for men. New ways of being. And the stories that come pouring out are painful and angry and grief-stricken. They create rage and they cause us to lash out. In part because we are still getting a backlash when we do share our pain. The cultural rules about showing weakness are embedding deep in us and deep in those we share our beds with. Sometimes the strictest silencers are those closest to us. They prefer the old model. They don’t like scary stories and fear. Men are supposed to protect them from that.
♦◊♦
Sharing the stories of our victimhood is a double edged sword. A slippery slope. Focusing on a personal history of powerlessness or victimhood, although a necessary step to moving past it, can be the equivalent of drinking poison. You can get stuck there. Forever.
Victimhood is a toxic state and one has to move past it or risk being drained and weakened by the very forces you are in opposition to. And so, if we as men (or women) are now empowered to tell publicly how we have been victimized, we should also be wary of staying in that place of victimhood only. Or for too long.
Its clear that some in society and online make an identity out of it. Demanding compensation and ease of passage over and over again without giving much consideration to their role in or responsibilities to society at large. They batter and attack people, brandishing their victimhood like a club. But they are the price we pay for a wider more open discourse.
If men and boys are finally emerging from that place in which we have been prohibited from telling our painful stories, then this represents a shift of historic proportions. Because in telling these stories we can find common ground with others and we can highlight how the old stale narratives about what it is to be a man not only fall short, but are grossly divisive, abusive and unfair.
I would suggest that telling our stories is possible now. Not everywhere. And not all the time. But we have our foot in the narrative door and we’re not taking it out. And if we want our fair share of the resources and energy directed at growing a better world, we should should start looking for common ground around all the stories being told, by men or women. Because looking for good will from others is the first step in putting our pain behind us. And within that general process I intend to keep working towards substantive and genuine empowerment for all boys and men.
And girls and women, too.
Click here to like Mark Greene’s Facebook page.
Get a powerful collection of Mark Greene’s articles, in his book, REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now in print and on Kindle Reader for Windows, Macs, Android, iPhones and iPads
Remaking Manhood is a collection of Mark Greene’s most widely shared articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Mark’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Get Remaking Manhood IN PRINT or on the free Kindle Reader app for any Mac, Windows or Android device here.
Read more by Mark Greene:
The Ugly and Violent Death of Gender Conformity
When “Check Your Male Privilege” Becomes a Bludgeon
Why Are Death Rates Rising for Middle Aged White Americans?
When Men Keep Demanding Sex From Their Partners Over and Over
How the Man Box Can Kill Our Sons Now or Decades from Now
Why Traditional Manhood is Killing Us
Why Do We Murder the Beautiful Friendships of Boys?
How America’s Culture of Shame is a Killer for Boys
The Culture of Shame: Men, Love, and Emotional Self-Amputation
The Man Box: Why Men Police and Punish Others
The Man Box: The Link Between Emotional Suppression and Male Violence
The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer
Touch Isolation: How Homophobia Has Robbed All Men of Touch
Boys and Self-Loathing: The Conversations That Never Took Place
The Dark Side of Women’s Requests of Progressive Men
—
I wanted to add this link to this article, as it, again, demonstrates that opposition to men’s rights isn’t just an internet feminist thing, but an institutional (NOW specifically) feminist agenda. Of particular note: “The Michigan branch of the National Organization for Women opposed the bills.” http://www.necn.com/06/10/12/Mich-bills-would-extend-biological-dads-/landing_politics.html?&apID=da7cfb404f9c49a8b8a0c82f88b5e895 The bill speaks of allowing men who believe themselves to be fathers of children born within a marriage (not his own) to file for paternity rights. Other than protecting a woman’s “right” to infidelity and paternity fraud without consequences, what reason does NOW have for opposing this bill? Can one seriously argue NOW… Read more »
It was signed into law. Score 1 for the good guys.
“Legislation inspired by a Livingston County man’s story was signed into law Tuesday by Governor Snyder. Public Act 159 of 2012 gives biological fathers more rights, and eliminates the Michigan Paternity Act, which Daniel Quinn of Hartland Township says has prevented him from seeing his daughter for the past four years. The new Act is titled “the Revocation of Paternity Act.” It permits a biological father to establish paternity of a child born or conceived during a marriage provided certain specific circumstances exist.”
http://jeannehannah.typepad.com/blog_jeanne_hannah_traver/paternity/
One of the most transparent and egregious examples of the suppression of Men’s issues is by the Nation Students Union in the UK . They recently passed a motion to oppose the hiring of Men’s Officers and officially offer advice on how to stop men from organizing. See here:- http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6078/I-Will-.pdf Stopping men from organizing in Universities is key to stopping the Mens Right’s from becoming more than a grassroots movement, those in opposition know this. Men’s centers or organizations offer places for like minded people to gather, exchange ideas, formulate policy, and organize campaigns. They allow for consistency of message,… Read more »
Whilst I can see your point, do you mind focusing your argument a bit more, is this SOME feminists or all feminists in the feminist movement opposing it? It treats the feminist movement as a monolith and so those feminists who do support the men’s center would feel they’re unfairly lumped in with a few who don’t.
Sorry Archy, but read his post again, he never actually blames feminism or the feminist movement for anything. He uses “those opposed to the men’s rights movement type language.
“The Feminist Movement knew this”
I meant for this, was it all of the feminist movement or just some? Is it a basic core belief?
Ah, you specified “opposing”…
“is this SOME feminists or all feminists in the feminist movement opposing it?”
I would argue that yes, the vast majority of the feminist movement knew universities offer places for like minded people to gather, exchange ideas, formulate policy, and organize campaigns (ether because they were part of it as university students, came through university where they experienced this, or helped organize at universities). As ZimbaZumba said, it is through Universities that the feminist movement ultimately flourished.
Well since there seems to be a standard in which if men care about it they should be speaking up. So where are the feminists that have a problem with these feminists railing against this (or trying to control) this Men’s Centre?
Actually I too am curious where the feminists are who will speak out against their sisters on the SFU men’s center issue. Would do quite a lot to help with credibility of the movement to see some call out the others on this stupidity.
Agreed. I keep hearing how those out to harm men are the fringe and real feminists are about equality, but the only time I hear about feminists getting rejected from the movement and deemed anti-feminist, it is people like Hoff Somers and Farrell. And the hateful type don’t even get a public scolding, they just get compartmentalized in discussions as a scapegoat to absorb the negative attitudes.
There is apparently very little (if any) objection. Otherwise, it would be out there.
There differences in views between the various factions of feminism are very slight. There is general agreement on most issues, to a greater or lesser degree. Otherwise, they would not be willing to share the monikor feminist.
Maybe I missed it somewhere but did anyone ever list the top 5 MRM’s? Like I said before, the only ones that I find on a google search are “fathers rights” groups …. not the same as what’s commonly known as an MRM. Can someone also let me know who the MRM lobbyists are in Washington?
National Coalition for men would be the main one that goes under the MRM banner. SAVE doesn’t go under the MRM label (for two reasons I believe: because men are less likely to help other men, Errin Pizzey discusses this when she discusses her attempt to open a men’s shelter before the shelter movement was usurped. secondly, because the MRM has a strong opposition in feminism, and taking on a more neutral stance helps deflect from that. Non-the-less, they are still targeted, such as SPLC’s MRM hate list including SAVE among the hate groups). Otherwise, I know of no other… Read more »
@Mark Goblowsky … thank you for posting the MRM’s which as we can see, are not the “forces” that some people want to make them out to be. The use of the term “MRM,” as I’ve seen with many responses to various articles would lead people to believe that MRM’s are a force to reckon with and I’m sad to say, I could only wish that MRM’s had such an influence. With the “new age” (lack of any other term for it) feminist movement, I believe that the feminists are attempting to hijack the men’s movement. A new and softer… Read more »
I don’t entirely disagree. I do very much believe there are elements attempting to usurp the MRM as they did the LGBT movement. You can see it at SFU in the women’s centre’s “male allies” program that that they claim is for men, but ultimately, it still remains for women and to teach men the are evil and harmful to women. Unfortunately, the bulk of the MRM is made up of men who have been burned, who are paying the exorbitant child support and alimony payments, who have no money and can’t afford time off work because of it. And… Read more »
I think the recent bruhaha over the SFU men’s centre proposal also shows a great deal on the efforts some feminist will take to keep men not under their influence from the discussion. There reason I say “not under their influence is because, if you go to the (SFU) women’s centre website and examine their male allies page, you will clearly see them promoting a men’s centre, but they are promoting one that focuses, not on men’s issues, but on how men ca further women’s issues, as well as instilling male blame/guilt. (as an aside, take a look at their… Read more »
ht tp://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/faqs.html ht tp://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/ Has a great article detailing the problems the women’s center and their attitude towards the mens center. From what I can understand these women’s center members are absolutely clueless to the reality of male suffering, see masculinity as negative and dangerous without ever asking could men have real issues to deal with instead of trying to get men to follow what these feminists want. ht tp://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/reverse-sexism-at-simon-fraser/ ” Or as some of the video’s contributors warn, “a highly masculinized space… a room with a PS3 and a bunch of douche bags playing video games”…” Clear misandry, I… Read more »
Yeah I’ve been sorta following this story too. I really want to say something like, “The next time some women’s advocates come along saying they don’t understand what men are up against, they need only look at this. Dead on evidence that people who call themselves activists that want to help all people, are not concerned for the well being of men. No they want to have a controlling influence on men.” But the problem is the sensible women’s advocates (like most of the feminists that hang out here) already know this stuff happens are actually putting real effort into… Read more »
“But the problem is the sensible women’s advocates (like most of the feminists that hang out here) already know this stuff happens are actually putting real effort into trying to understand what men are up against instead of the all too common practice of declaring that men just want to control women every time they see something they don’t like.”
While I agree they know it exists, I do feel they underestimate just how pervasive it is. It’s not the fringe but the core.
One of the arguments O felt was interesting went along the lines of, the men’s center should be created in conjunction with the women’s center so that it wouldn’t become a bastion of misogyny. So abortion should be legal and we should “trust women”, but men shouldn’t be allowed to create a center that addresses their unique issues in society because we can “trust” men not to be misogynists, an interesting perspective, but completely wrong. Another argument was that the women’s center addressed LGBT issues that the men’s center wouldn’t as if a gay man could walk into the women’s… Read more »
“They wanted the men’s center to essentially be another women’s center or at least an extension of.”
That message is spelled out clear as day on the poster for their male allies page of the women’s centre website, the poster that basically says a men’s centre will look at how men negatively impact women and can help resolve that. nothing about men’s issues, apparently they don’t exist.
One need only look at Erin Pizzey, and the effort that went into (successfully) silencing her attempts to acknowledge female violence and male victimization, and the subsequent results 40 years latter, where male victims continue to be largely ignored, going so far as Verizon’s recent “Monster” commercial (that got rightly pulled, but can still be found on various blogs), where even the male child was not portrayed as a victim, but rather, as an abuser in training. He did not fear as his sister did, instead you have the word “abuse” knock down the little girl, and the boy stride… Read more »
I wrote a small article on the SFU initiative a sent it to GMP about 2 weeks ago. Lisa was going to look into outing it on the blog. I thought it was important to note successes of the MRM . Many feminists accuse the MRM of simply complaining and not actively seeking change. I thought that it was important to note that the comments section on neutral web sites were pro men’s center even comments from women. Speaking up, relating your experiences and changing minds does have an effect. I mentioned how at the start of my grad class,… Read more »
I’d like to read it. Don’t the editors discuss why it can/can’t be posted via email?
It’s up now: https://goodmenproject.com/the-issues-of-mens-rights/mens-issues-its-important-to-celebrate-success/
Thanks for contributing.
John, your article was put up as you now know. I want to let you in on the timeline it can take to get pieces up. I’ve submitted things and have had it take up to two weeks to get published depending on the editorial process, theme of pieces listed, other authors ahead of me in queue and so forth. Blog posts come more fast and furious but even so. I would have appreciated much more detail in your piece about the successes and what went into making them, personally. Because I felt that more of that would have been… Read more »
And if you ever have questions about where your piece is in the process, Joanna, Justin or Lisa are always more than happy to answer.
I’m guessing it’s delayed so there is a steady stream of articles, instead of one day 20 articles, the next day none?
You can see what’s happening here, it’s the same that the roman catholic church did, they refused to answer questions or about or acknowledge that there was a deliberate cover up.
Typo. was typing too fast:
2. primary aggressor laws (which basically instruct PD’s and police officers that female on male domestic abuse is 5% of the total–in total contradiction of all good known reliable studies). If a PD or officer deviates substantially (from women representing more than 5% of domestic disturbance arrests) the PD is directed to correct the behavior or lose the grant.
Snipet of Mark Greene’s article: “But is there ill will at work here, intentionally suppressing a public discourse on male issues?” The answer is: yes, on some advocates parts. The $550 million annual budget of the OVW (Office for Violence against Women) which is a subjurisdiction of the Dept of Justice issues grants to police departments and courts to instill three mainstays of the duluth wheel idea of DV (that 1 it is gendered and 2 it is based on patriarchal concepts of the right of men to maintain discipline of women). These three legs of the tripod are: 1.… Read more »
Here is the story of David Woods:
ht tp://www.drdue.com/tag/women-and-violence/
“3. no-drop prosecution which basically gives grants to prosecutors (which prosecutors don’t want a larger budget?) to prosecute minor instances of shoving or slapping (for MEN primarily since PD’s are directed to make sure they arrest mostly men regardless of who is injured). Many times the wife doesn’t even lodge a complaint or call the cops–it is a 3rd party who does so, and the man is prosecuted against the wife’s wishes. In other words their is no complainant other than the government.” Firstly, technically in all criminal cases in the U.S. it’s the government bringing the charges against the… Read more »
Heather, The problem is that when you couple no-drop prosecutions with primary aggressor laws you have a system that executes itself primarily against men. Also, no-drop prosecution is a very strong tool of government interference into peoples private affair. It should be used with some discretion and *strong* guidelines. It shouldn’t be used in simple shoving or slapping cases (particularly against the victims consent) especially if the person has no record of violence and there were exacerbating conditions (emotion distress like death of a love one, termination from a job, being intoxicated) which point to an unlikeliness to re-offend, and… Read more »
I would have just as much an issue with this seeming *rabid* use of no-drop prosecutions (90 days for throwing cheetos in a persons face?) if it was gender neutral or done mostly to women. If the person doesn’t have a record of abuse, but the prosecutor suspects that the abuse is persistent and continuous but well-hidden, then it is the job of prosecutors to prove that by interviewing other family members. If they can’t prove that, then they should drop the case as in the cheetos in the face case. Rather, it seems like a lot of prosecutors would… Read more »
@ John D
The answer might be aggressive use of alternative sentencing. The state can still bring charges if warranted. Families can still get the support they need. The DA still gets the win. A plea bargain for mandatory counseling would eliminate long incarcerations if it included record expunging after a certain time period since I don’t think anyone would object.
Actually, I have a problem with that. This is exactly my point. Charges that should be dropped can be used as leverage to extract deals that the citizen shouldn’t be subjected to because if the case went to court the judge would throw them out. Secondly, in order to strike an agreement you have to admit guilt. This may not go on a record an employer will see, but it definitely will come up in a divorce court (and have a huge impact) or have a sizable impact on any future criminal court proceedings. If there is no case, it… Read more »
Heather
There have been studies that show that there are problems with mandatory arrest and no drop despite the wishes of the spouse. For example genuine victims that want proper family counselling as opposed to arrest and the state dissolving the family will avoid calling the police.
The reason it must be fought is because money flows to the “important victims” that is way that charities work, the more deserving the victim the more money the collect, showing a male victim of sexual violence doesn’t garner as much money as a young girl does.
There is that, the information that I have from the DV establishment is saying that its often done to corroborate patriarchy theory. These charities and non profits, are often political too.
Mark.
There is plenty of evidence on the thread that there is in fact an organised effort to suppress male victimization that goes as far are threatening activists and researchers. There is plenty more of it around too.
This article seems to have set out to suppress the idea that there is an organised effort to suppress this information, would you be prepared to address the evidence that there is a deliberate effort to mislead the public and gov. on this?
Why is “the representation of males in the media… an inevitable roadblock that must be confronted?” Because if the misrepresentation continues then they will serve to perpetuate misconceptions. Why do we need to “tip the scales?” Those phrases reek of a gender war that, quite frankly, I’m not at all interested in being a part of. Its a matter of telling all of the story. Or all of the stories. As I explained above to Transhuman, I’m okay with the fact that I’m not hunting for alleged gender reporting disparities. I just don’t see the evidence that you do of… Read more »
This vid really puts the problem in perspective, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc6ytcZPmMQ Did she really have to go there with the “Angry White Male” thing? I am a Black guy, Republican, and Tea Party supporter. I was actually watching the show that morning as I always do. I just did not feel she needed to go there to make her point. Whether you like the Tea Party or not, I just am curious why she (Ms. Whitney) felt the need to make the “angry white male” statement. Maybe someone can help me out? Just Monday while in Wash DC on business, I witnessed… Read more »
This site keeps refreshing and wiping my responses… third times a charm. @Transhuman: I think I’ll decline your offer. I’m just fine with the fact that, when I read a story like the above, I don’t think to tally up the victims of my gender. It’s not tragic that people died “because they were women.” It’s also not tragic that people died because they were men. It’s tragic that people died. I don’t want to become distracted seeking out gender-signifying words in an article like that; I want to feel the sting of the people’s pain and use that to… Read more »
Sean: I agree that Africa doesn’t receive enough media attention, and that news of atrocities there often fails to reach the eyes and ears of the Western world. But again, I don’t see that silence drawn up on gender lines. Abduction, rape, the use of child soldiers, and widespread murder are too common. Well, let me illustrate by referring to an excerpt from one interview with an activist working to prevent rape in DRC. CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: They usually come at the end of the day or during the night. They just come and circle the villages. Most of the… Read more »
“@Transhuman: I think I’ll decline your offer. I’m just fine with the fact that, when I read a story like the above, I don’t think to tally up the victims of my gender. …”
I am surprised you are comfortable with men being marginalised. My point about reading the news articles is it isn’t people who die, women and children die. The deaths of men is implied. To me that is sexism and contributes to the normative image of men as the disposable sex.
men are the correct gender to be killed. It is a deviation when women and children are killed, and as such, it must be mentioned. That should be telling to some people, but it’s so ingrained they don’t even notice.
@ Sean It’s not just the omission of male victimization, but the portrayal of men as rapists or murders. Feminists complain that the number of false rape accusations that hit the media give the impression that women lie about rape all the time. Maybe it’s hard to degender certain things like rape, but it could be balanced by providing a positive image of men (gendering) other things. Instead of saying a fire fighter saved a child from a burning building they could say a fireman saved a child from a burning building. Here are some studies that looked at media… Read more »
@ Sean
“But there is, I think, a distinction between the girl bombarded with images of pop stars and the women of reality TV, and the ungendered male victims in a news story “
I think one of the things you’re missing is that men and boys are bombarded by images in the media as well. 25% of people with eating disorders are men / boys. Are there stories of female victims that have gone ungendered, while equally victimized males got a special mention?
Adam Jones analyses the western media’s style of coverage of male suffering…
Effacing the Male
Just before last Christmas there was an oil rig collapse to the north of Russia. Over fifty men died. No western media ever referred to them by gender. They were described as “the drowned”, corpses, workers, but never simply as “men”. Their only value – even in death – is their utility to others.
Greg Allen: I don’t think that the underlying ideas of feminism are wrong, nor do I think that they encourage suppression. Again, there are feminists that try to steer the conversation in the wrong direction, but I don’t want to participate in an argument with people who won’t change their mind. I’ll work to end “domestic violence,” and I won’t qualify it with gender. As for your second comment… does it matter that they were men who died? Hearing a story like that, I think of the lives that were cut short and the families who lost a loved one.… Read more »
“As for your second comment… does it matter that they were men who died?” Yes it does matter. When men die they are reported as “people”, “casualties”, “miners” or “soldiers”, you can tell it was men who died because the journo will bend over backwards to conceal their sex in paragraph after paragraph of disaster-porn. They will go into detail how these “people” died, but not mention they were men. When women die, they are women soldiers, women workers, women victims, women drivers, women passengers. Women are always women, even in death. Men are sexless in death, they have already… Read more »
Good point Transhuman. It’s not only men who are faceless in death, but women too when their assailant is another women. Look to the story of the Kuwaiti ex-wife who lit fire to the women and girls tent at her exes new marriage. She killed 42 women and girls. If this had been done by a man, it would be on the feminists hit list as proof of muslim oppression of women. Since it was done by women, it was picked up by almost no U.S. papers that I have seen (at least it didn’t make the front page as… Read more »
Finally, a few points on the tragic story of journalism about Kosovo: I think that “women and children” are included in news reports more often than men because they serve as a signifier for civilian casualties. Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. I grieve no less for the 70 dead men, but I grieve all the more for the 100 people because I can recognize that these people were not involved in the war. And I think that is a sign of a problem. It seems… Read more »
@ Sean “If people spent as much time trying to end these root problems as they spent arguing about male representation in the media, the world would be a better place.” But male representation in the media shapes perception or are you arguing that girls don’t have body issues do to the representation of female beauty in the media. Couldn’t a positive or at least balanced depiction of men in the media assist in correcting these root issues? “Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. I grieve… Read more »
I think that “women and children” are included in news reports more often than men because they serve as a signifier for civilian casualties. Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. You might be right about the immediate reasonging behind using that phrase, but does that really matter? The underlying assumptions is that men can’t be civilian, non-combatants in a war-zone. The underlying assumptions is that the death of women and children elicit a greater feeling of loss than the death of men which directly means that… Read more »
exactly. It implies that men are the correct gender to die, and that when women and children are killed, it is somehow not right
“…deaths, including women and children” Very few people would like to admit this out loud, but the language suggests that when women and children die, it is more tragic than when men die. The “including women and children” suggests an extra level of tragedy, like “wait, it gets worse: it even killed women and children.” I don’t think it means that men’s deaths are treated like no big deal, but in relative terms it sounds like less of a tragedy. Perhaps the assumption is that women and children are more vulnerable than men are, so victimizing them sounds even more… Read more »
“The underlying assumptions is that men can’t be civilian, non-combatants in a war-zone.”
This is so true, as evidenced by Obama himself with the following:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/
“Why do we need to bring gender into the story? ” Good question, but it’s to late to ask. Th question is overcome by events. Discussion and percpetions of DV has been gendered for ever- only men abuse, only women are victims. That’s gendering and you and I aren’t “bringing it in” to the discussion. “The use of rape in wartime is horrific. I completely understand why that makes the headlines, even when other atrocities occur as well. ” The way rape in wartime is reported is gendered too. It made a huge splash when the Guardian ran an article… Read more »
“I’d disagree with anyone who claims that feminism as a movement tries to suppress men’s issues.” So when feminists in Australia’s federal government interfered in the work of our Bureau of Statistics to hide victims and perpetrators of abuse just exactly what was that? They were determined to introduce discriminatory legislation and cooked the books to enable it. The result is nearly two decades of institutionalised discrimination wherein hundreds of thousands of victims are unable to access local services that their taxes fund and who are further abused if they dare try to get help. If that’s not “suppression” I’d… Read more »
Well I’m a straight male (presumably the target audience of the website?) and I loved this article. I’d disagree with anyone who claims that feminism as a movement tries to suppress men’s issues. An individual’s flawed application of an important idea is still an important idea. Also, I think it’s important that men talk about feminism. And women should invite them to the conversation, not view them as antagonists from the start. Men are 50% of the population; men and women need to work together to achieve progress. You put it well, Mark: I wouldn’t have this kind of conversation… Read more »
Sean, I couldn’t agree more. I absolutely love discussing feminism with men, and inviting them to the conversation. 🙂 Likewise, I really appreciate when men want to elucidate for me the issues or struggles they face that might not be so apparent to me, as a woman.
Well I’m a straight male (presumably the target audience of the website?) and I loved this article. I’d disagree with anyone who claims that feminism as a movement tries to suppress men’s issues. An individual’s flawed application of an important idea is still an important idea. The reason I disagree with that remark is because the ones that do try to suppress men’s issues seem to be able to do so while going largely unchallenged, if not agreed with. A movement is made of individuals and while I agree its not fair to just all feminists by the actions of… Read more »
You make some fair points, Danny. I think feminists are wrong to generalize about men and MRAs just as I think generalizations about feminists aren’t constructive. Also, I’m not sure I could call myself a feminist; all of my knowledge about the movement is derived from friends of mine and from the Women’s Center that was on my campus. So perhaps I spoke in haste, without enough material to draw on. I should have said that in my experience, feminists do not try to suppress men’s rights issues. All the pamphlets that I’ve read have made a point to stress… Read more »
And finally, I understand your frustration. But where does this conversation about suppression end? I can agree to that. But I’ll say this, the suppressors have no business asking that question. Can we change the minds of those who’d suppress men’s rights issues? Not likely. A problem indeed. I’ve tried being reasonable, I’ve tried lashing out, and both seem to fail. Why don’t we reframe the debate as an issue of “domestic abuse” and leave gender out of the conversation? In my experience most of the time the people that want to leave gender out of the conversation are ones… Read more »
@ Sean
“Women’s issues currently get more press because women talk. If you fellows want that to change, do something about it.”
Men make more money than women because they tend to go into the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, they pay the death premium (more dangerous jobs), and work longer hours. Would you hold the same true for women?
I’m not sure what you’re asking me, John. I hope that men and women feel free to choose jobs based on their interests, although I recognize that widespread sociological conditioning often informs an individuals career choice. But also, I wasn’t really talking about the uneven pay scale or the uneven gender distribution across certain fields.
Sean writes: “I’d disagree with anyone who claims that feminism as a movement tries to suppress men’s issues.” Feminism as a whole? No. Some feminists? Definitely. However, if haters have infiltrated an egalitarian movement and do damage against anybody in the name of a movement, then that movement’s name gets tarnished. Which is exactly what has happened. Feminism (but not necessarily feminist) has become a 4letter word. It seems a lot of people have a lot of nostalgic felling over the word feminism. I say stop worrying about the precious label of feminism and let’s all join together to root… Read more »
I don’t quite get where all the controversy comes from. It seems logical to me that some women with some degree of power might abuse that power. Men in power sometimes abuse their power, so it does not seem so farfetched that women with power would also, sometimes. I hold these truths to be self-evident: 1. Women are people. 2. People can be quite nasty to each other. Therefore, ONE valid logical conclusion from this is that women can be quite nasty to other people. Also: 1. Power corrupts. 2. Feminist have some degree of power. Therefore, ONE valid logical… Read more »
See? This makes great sense to me. Always has. Humans are capable of good and bad. And they do both. Sometimes simultaneously.
Love this, wellokaythen! I really resent the imputation that because I’m a feminist, I’m automatically oppressing men. I’ve often tried to convey that it is unfair to impute that against me, when I try so consciously every day to resist the oppression of all people. Because no matter how we self-identify, you’re right – we’re all just humans, and humans are fallible! 🙂
I really can understand why you would resent that imputation. The mirror side of that imputation is of course the imputation that because I am a man I am automatically oppressing women (“all men benefit from rape” and so on). Needless to say I resent that imputation when I encounter it. Yet for many feminist that imputation seems to be the core of feminism – that imputation is what they call patriarchy.
Yeah, there’s that complexity that I didn’t even get to. Good and bad simultaneously!
And, what’s also really common: doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing something bad but from a good intention. Very rarely is life like the cartoon villains who do evil things for self-consciously evil reasons.
Wellokaythen writes: “Now, there is an excellent argument to make here in relative terms. Is feminist power more corrupting than other forms of power?” Or more likely a women’s advocacy group attracts women with a virulent strain of that thought. It’s not that different from racists or isolationists/survivalists being attracted to the men’s rights movement. There is an undertow to the men’s rights movement which is made up of persons not really concerned about men’s rights so much as they are trying to get people to agree with their belief system (not unlike some radical feminists) in which they hate,… Read more »
I want to commend all the writers, contributors, and especially, the editors of this site for participating in such a contentious topic….not easy, for sure….I think the quality of comments have gotten better…and even if I don’t agree with everything that is said, I still read it and weigh it…and it helps to have the editors clarify and parse out the details and try to hone in on the meaning or intonation of what is being argued…. I remember at college watching a debate between Al Goldstein (Screw Magazine) and Faith Mellish on pornography…and it got almost cartoonish at how… Read more »
One chromosome goes a long way.
The lack of attention to men’s issues like male victims of domestic violence is the result of a combination of things. I think the article makes a great point that there are multiple things at work, and a lot of them are of course inter-connected. There are broader stereotypes that people in our society keep returning to, like the simple idea that men are perpetrators and women are victims. If a possible news story doesn’t quite fit that simple assumption, then it may not make the news. Sometimes people just don’t want to believe it because it doesn’t fit their… Read more »
It may also be the case that men, by and large having been socialized to not share or show weakness or talk about pain and sorrow and disappointment, have internalized the message to the point where we are actually less likely to feel, or notice that we feel, hurt, used, abused or afraid. Women are told it is ok to feel all those things and to talk about how they feel all those things. Some of the lack of reporting may actually go back to a gender difference in socialized, personal, subjective experience (and/or consciousness of experience) of being put… Read more »
Mark, you did not address the question of whether or not women’s issues have purposely been highlighted to specifically disempower men. I think that sometimes women’s issues are highlighted to deny men’s experiences. It happened a few times on this blog, most often by a person who no longer writes here. He would write about women’s issues essentially to prove women have it worse, sometimes in direct response to people writing about men’s experiences. We also saw this with Justin’s article about the good feminism does for men, which he later stated was a response to critics of feminism. I… Read more »
It’s interesting to observe that you’ve learnt to refrain from sharing your experiences with femenists and to ge guarded in the presence of the traditionally minded. In other words there is a commonality between the two schools of thought, a distinct similarity both parties might not want to admit to, given that one would expect femenists and traditionalists to assume they are in opposition.
This persistent sameness and predictability regarding attitudes to men indicates that this behaviour comes from a very primal part of humans, this evasiveness I’m forever bringing attention to.
The irony here is the rush to gloss over the fact that a political movement has been deliberately suppressing information on male victims and female perpetrators since the beginning of the dv movement.
I remember last year. After telling a girl how I felt about her, rumors started spreading that I was giving theatre girls “special attention”. Girls I didn’t know were fabricating stories of how I raped them, robbed them, threatened them. I remember going to lunch once. I saw a girl whisper into a guy’s ear, and next thing I know, he’s shoving me against a wall and threatening me. I went to a play and received a death threat from one of the spectators. After going to security, they told me about the reports. They told me if the girls… Read more »
“Then I arrive at sociology class, where the men were expected to stand up and pledge their allegiance to women, then a public speaker came in a told us how men are ill unless they fit the feminist agenda. Saying stuff like “If you call me beautiful, you’re objectifying me, and so you’re one of the men responsible for rape culture”. Then the lecture closes: “Men don’t understand their privilege because they are so swimming in it. Men don’t understand how easy they have it, and don’t sympathize with the life of pain women have in comparison.”” Too bad you… Read more »
You’re right. But I didn’t record it, because I still had a sweet tooth for feminism at the time. I was one of the facepalm-worthy guys who just enthusiastically went with it, then wondered why I couldn’t figure out why I didn’t feel proud to be a man despite this privilege. I wondered why, if women had most of the problems, did I feel like I was hitting a wall in so many areas. Feeling guilt I couldn’t define, for the discomfort of girls I didn’t know, because of actions that statistically shouldn’t discomfort them in public situations, or when… Read more »
Web,
Just a personal note: drop sociology and take economics instead. The methodologies are far more rigorous, there is actual hypothesis testing (no unfalsifiable theories), and you study the exact same topics: race, gender, class, etc. Furthermore, economists have a bigger real-world impact (there is no President’s Counsel of Sociological Advisors, and while the Supreme Court has accepted econometric regressions before, they rejected Social Construct Models just this past fall).
Majoring in economics was probably the best decision of my life. If you have a chance, check it out.
Hey Web,
You should have filed a police report on the man who accosted you.
The only way these people will learn about gossipping is when they get harmed instead of the targets of the gossip.
I love this, Mark! I don’t think that attending to the issues that either gender struggle with negates attending to the issues of the other. In fact, I think both men and women need to focus on the issues each struggle with, because without cooperation, it will be difficult to achieve any sort of equality.
Sometimes people mistake my identifying as a feminist to mean that I am concerned only with the empowerment of women. But for me, the empowerment of boys and men, freedom from gendered expectations, from oppression, are equally important. This is not a mutually exclusive goal.
Totally!
Sometimes people mistake my identifying as a feminist to mean that I am concerned only with the empowerment of women. And even if you did that wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself. Focusing only on women is just a matter of where to focus your efforts. Saying that focusing only on women in and of itself denies men is like saying it would deny the drug problem. The problems start when one starts to deny the experiences of men for the sake of empowering women. Like lying about or misuing crime stats. Shaming male victims. Claiming that helping… Read more »
Jasmine and Heather (and Lisa in some measure): Thanks for caring about men’s stories and for equality of protection as well as equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, institutionalized feminism, the lobbying and advocacy groups, their well-funded allies in the mainstream media, their fundraising networks in both politics and the charitable sector, don’t often talk that talk, and rarely, if ever, walk that talk. Have you, personally, raised the questions and stories brought forward by men on this site when you talk with women friends, or are at social or political or networking events where women of power and influence gather? That… Read more »
I always find it interesting when people ask me questions like this. Yes, I call out people whenever I find them stereotyping anyone. Have I ever kept silent? Well yes, I have…and I’m not proud of it. But everyone’s let hateful jokes or remarks slide when they’re fearful of reprisal or of making too much of a scene. But I don’t make a habit of letting crap like that go. I also surround myself with people who aren’t complete ass-hats, so it’s really rare that it’s a friend of mine who’s making hateful comments (about anyone). I’ll ask you, do… Read more »
I can only iterate what Heather has already said. I don’t deal exclusively with women’s issues. I often initiate conversations about issues men face – with men, women, and whoever else wants to listen. That’s just inherently part of who I am as a feminist. I always call people out when I hear them stereotyping men or women. It’s something that I find myself doing on a daily basis. It’s not only something I do in my daily life, I also bring it forth into my academic life, where I challenge ideas within the profession regarding gender binaries – because… Read more »
Heather, Jasmine and Julie — Thank you. I am glad to hear that. In answer to Heather’s question, yes I do, and have for years. Heather, I asked the question in part because when I am part of a distinct male minority at a women’s event, the man-bashing shows up more often than I would have thought, and rarely so I see women ask other women to step back just a little for perspective. I usually do not feel like I can say anything, because when I have the nearly inevitable response to me is an offended comment about how… Read more »
“Heather, I asked the question in part because when I am part of a distinct male minority at a women’s event, the man-bashing shows up more often than I would have thought, and rarely so I see women ask other women to step back just a little for perspective.” This has been my experience sometimes as well. I tend to be pretty sympathetic to feminism, and I like to think I understand where much of the animosity is coming from, but such male-bashing is not only unfair but also counterproductive. Where I work It is largely unchallenged if it is… Read more »
I most certainly have.
I have not felt real hope in many days. Thanks for giving this back to me. If a liberal can recognize that the pain of a man hurts just as badly as the pain of a woman, maybe there can be a path forward.
OK, I will be the one to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the contribution of the feminist movement’s philosophies on men’s issues being ignored. 1. The concept of “male privilege” that has been taught in women’s studies/feminism theory and argued in society socializes the idea that boys and men automatically have privilege over girls and women based on being male, no matter how debased the boys/men’s circumstances are. So, why should those with the privilege be offered help? That would be an affront on the underprivileged ones. That contributes to men’s/boys’ issues being kept in the back room. 2.… Read more »
Eric, our first goal here is to tell men’s stories. Mark did that on this post — gave a heartfelt account of how he sees the world. I’ve talked to you about writing for us before, but if you don’t want to do that — why don’t you do this? Go out and find us writers who are writing well-reasoned pieces about what you are seeing about “The Elephant in the Room.” Ask those people if we can re-print their articles here. Or just connect them with me, or point me in their direction. If you are telling me that… Read more »
Hi Lisa – thanks for the reply. My time is limited and, to be honest, I spend more time here than elsewhere. Regarding the change that I want to see: I try to be/live that change on a daily and weekly basis. Also, I don’t see it as change, as much as betterment/improvement, which over time becomes change. As I’ve said before, I do a lot of volunteer work and, false modesty aside, dozens of people that I don’t even remember have approached me thanking me for helping them, some even saying that I saved their lives. Maybe I did,… Read more »
The political strategy of the ‘sexualisation’ of the debate, ie making rape, sexual assault , DV and demonisation of men was warned against by Betty Friedman. She favored a more standard political approach as she felt it would be more effective, and make no mistake she was no shrinking violet. The likes of MacKinnon and Dworkin won the day the movement them embarked on the “the sky is falling and it’s them who is doing it” strategy. This strategy has proved effective throughout human history, the 20th Century is littered with leaders who have risen to power using it. Demonisation… Read more »
That was worth more than two cents.
Eric M writes: “Thus, the message promoted is that DV is violence against women. Hence, we have the VAWA. So, if a woman hits/slaps/punches, etc. a man, the cops and others have been socialized to not consider that domestic violence (since it’s not violence against women)” It’s more than just socialization. The $550 million annual budget OVW (Office for Violence against Women) created by VAWA is part of the justice department and issues grants to police departments to enact primary aggressor laws. Under these grants a PD or officer whose arrests of women in DV calls deviates much more than… Read more »
@Mark Goblowsky … thank you for writing this. I have to say, you must have a brilliant mind to have put this together in a relatively short period of time … Good for you man! I hope that people don’t over think this and take it for face value and to me that’s bringing to light that which has been in the shadows for quite a while. I believe that society knows of the abuse men endure but for whatever reason, it’s been kept out of the light. Perhaps it’s the belief that if it’s brought to the main stream,… Read more »
I think you’re probably right about the intent of the article and had he simply said men have been and are victimized and this should be recognized and addressed in our public discourse, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it. I came up with that in about a minute, but I think that he tried to do that while still asserting that women are more victimized than men. Highlighting women’s issues was justified. Men refused to recognize that they needed help (victim blaming) and men need to get beyond being a victim although they just started to… Read more »